Page 146 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

:
u :

: STATES
■ « 84 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARABIAN GULF
!
i TREATY-MAKING CAPACITY
i
Treaties with the United Kingdom: nature and justiciability
Should the treaties between the Gulf States and the United Kingd om
be regarded as internationally binding instruments, subject to arbitra­
tion in a recognised tribunal in the event of breach by either party?
As there can be little real doubt about the status of the Treaty between
the United Kingdom and Muscat of 1951—a recognised international
instrument registered with the United Nations—and since the British-
Muscati relations arc not of a protectorate character, the present dis­
cussion will be limited to the position only of the treaties with the
Shaikhdoms.
Whether treaties between the protected and the protecting State arc
treaties in the international sense or merely contracts of no binding
effect internally, is a question which is very difficult to answer. Per­
haps the only decision of an international tribunal which has been
given on this question is that of the International Court of Justice in
the case of the Rights of the United States Nationals in Morocco (1952).
As stated before, the Court affirmed the principle that Morocco ‘even
under the protectorate, has retained its personality as a State in
International Law . . .* As regards the Treaty of Fez of 1912, the
Court held: ‘It is an international instrument’ under which Morocco
‘remained a sovereign State . . .n
However, it seems difficult to regard the above case as establishing
a general principle of law which can be safely applied to all treaties
between protecting and protected States, since the status of such
treaties varies. Moreover, the protecting Powers do not always regard
their treaties with their protectorates as the only basis of their mutual
relations. The treaties between the British Government and the former
States of India are a case in point. It was stated in the Indian Official
Gazette of 2 August 1881 in connection with the definition of the
relationship between the protected States and the Crown that:
The principles of international law have no bearing upon the relations
between the government of India as representing the queen-empress on the
one hand, and the native states under the suzerainty of Her Majesty on the
other. The paramount supremacy of the former presupposes and implies
the subordination of the latter.
British treaties with those States were not regarded as binding on the
Crown in the international sense, but, according to Hall, as
little more than statements of limitations which the Imperial Government,
except in very exceptional circumstances, places on its own action._______
11.C.J. Reports, 1952, pp. 185-8.